Continuity and Canon in Video Games

[scotland171]

From the days of Cosmic Ark on the 2600, video games have had continuity between them.  When they started making licensed games, at what point where those games in continuity or canon for the story?

There is a current hullabaloo about the Star Wars Expanded Universe being made noncanon. Comics go through so many reboots its just outrageous. Whether Nu Who is a continuation of Classic Who was a big thing.  

Video games have the same thing.  Which version of Sonic is 'the real Sonic' - cartoon, comic, game?  Could Shaggy and Daphne hook up in a game, completely out of character for Scooby Doo. That whatever happens in The Legend of Zelda, its canon that the hero is Link, the princess is Zelda, and not that the hero is a chimpanzee named Chim Chim and 'Zelda' is the name of his sockpuppet.  Whatever happens to Mario, he has a mustache and his brother is named Luigi, not Bob.  That if you bought a new Metroid, and now Samus as a man and had always been a man, and that any image of him as a her was noncanon.  That when you were Kyle Katarn or the trooper from the 501st, your adventures were part of the larger Star Wars universe.   As games get more cinematic, does Master Chief have to be consistent between Halo games? 

Do you care about continuity or canon?   Do you play every game as a standalone 'What if' about a larger property or a previous game in the franchise, or would you be upset if Sonic turned out to be a porcupine one day.


Edit: Fixing grammer

[Vexer1]

If a game is based on a TV/movie, then I really don't care much about continuity.

[Rev1]

This is an interesting topic. I'm honestly not sure how I would feel 100% if Sonic went into the next game as a sloth instead of a hedgehog. Despite the interesting examples you provided most of the time developers don't seem that willing to change the fundamentals about their characters and will usually keep the main points of a character the same despite the millions of other games in the series. Mario is always a plumber who wears red, has a mustache, etc, and Samus is always a woman, in armor, fighting off hordes of enemies on a distant planet. Perhaps that is because consumers wouldn't pick up the next game if something was drastically different (or they don't want to risk it). I would like to say that I'd still play the game if something was aesthetically different between the characters. Minor changes I believe are easier to swallow compared to big changes to a character (such as a change in gender or appearance) but I can't think of too many examples where a developer changed the fundamental aspects of their characters. Still, over time I believe I would play the game and give it a shot as long as the game wasn't complete garbage.

[ZetaX1]

I tend to look at each game as a standalone entity unless it's meant to be part of a trilogy, or something like that.

Didn't they change Dante in the Devil May Cry games? I haven't tried the newer games in that series.

[Segatarious1]

I have no interest in continuity or canon in games.

If a game is made by its own developers, I guess it is 'canon' whether you like it or not. After all, they made it.

Continuity is often stupid, look at the supposed Zelda timeline for proof of that. There is no true continuity unless you plan tings out, and obviously you are not 'planning out' 30+ years of Zelda games. Continuity is totally unimportant, every game can relate only to itself, and its own gameplay.

[scotland171]

[QUOTE=Rev]...Despite the interesting examples you provided most of the time developers don't seem that willing to change the fundamentals about their characters and will usually keep the main points of a character the same despite the millions of other games in the series...Perhaps that is because consumers wouldn't pick up the next game if something was drastically different (or they don't want to risk it)...I can't think of too many examples where a developer changed the fundamental aspects of their characters. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Segatarious]I have no interest in continuity or canon in games....Continuity is often stupid, look at the supposed Zelda timeline for proof of that...Continuity is totally unimportant, every game can relate only to itself, and its own gameplay .[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the replies.   Doesn't Assassin's Creed change up main characters across time (using a framing device of one person's heritage).   A Star Wars game can focus on characters hundreds of years apart in time.  So there are games that risk completely new characters and eave behind the old.  Star Wars games can also have very different styles of gameplay.

Continuity can be a tangled web, but its not necessarily stupid.  It can open up the doors for character development, for instance, or it can highlight the failure to have character development.  in 1973, Spiderman's girlfriend is killed, and it has profound implication for him.  In 1977, when Superfriends was on the air, Aquaman had his infant son brutally murdered in the comics.  The result...nothing for 30 years really.  

Why do video game characters do what they do when they have no backstory, no motivation for why they act like they do?  Yes, because its a game, but even in a video game doesn't motivation matter?  When you fly an x-wing down the trench in the Death Star, you understand the motivation because the Yamato, er, Death Star, just blew up a planet with its wave motion gun. It makes it more exciting.

I know Segatarious is no fan of storytelling in video games, but continuity can bring in some excitement, some urgency, or even emotional commitment. He did not address canon, for instance, if the next Legend of Zelda is about Princess Zelda sending her champion, Shaq, to save the kingdom of NBA Rule from the evil of Donald Sterling. Does it matter if its Link or Shinobi saving Hyrule or Japan?